Environmental Research Center, Inc. v. Premier Health, LLC
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-06509
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Environmental Research Center v. Premier Health, Judge Chesney ordered Premier Health to explain why the case should not return to state court.
Premier Health, LLC must respond to the court’s concern about federal jurisdiction. The case’s continued placement in federal court is also affected.
What happened
Environmental Research Center, Inc. sued Premier Health, LLC over state-law claims involving an alleged failure to warn consumers about lead in a nutritional health product. Premier removed the case from state court to federal court, claiming the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake.
The court found Premier’s allegations about the parties’ citizenship insufficient. Although Premier called itself a Nevada citizen, it did not identify its owners or members or state each person’s citizenship. Information about Premier’s manager and an agent did not establish the required difference in citizenship.
The court ordered Premier to explain in writing by October 1, 2021, why the case should not be sent back to state court for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Maxine M. Chesney did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Environmental Research Center, Inc. v. Premier Health, LLC · No. 3:21-cv-06509
- Maxine Chesney
- Sept. 14, 2021
Background
Environmental Research Center, Inc. filed state-law claims in state court concerning Premier Health, LLC’s alleged failure to warn consumers that its nutritional health product contained lead. Premier filed a notice removing the action to federal court on August 23, 2021.
Premier asserted that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction is the authority to hear a case involving citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs.
Jurisdictional Issue
The court found Premier’s allegations about citizenship inadequate. Premier described itself as a limited liability company and alleged that it was a Nevada citizen. But a limited liability company’s citizenship depends on the citizenship of all of its owners or members. Premier did not identify those owners or members or allege each owner’s or member’s citizenship.
Premier instead identified its sole current manager as a Utah resident and stated that an agent was headquartered in Nevada, with the respective principal places of business in Nevada. The court concluded that these allegations did not establish that the parties had diverse citizenship.
Order
The court ordered Premier to show cause in writing, no later than October 1, 2021, why the action should not be remanded—that is, returned to state court—for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order did not decide the underlying state-law claims or finally determine whether the case would be remanded.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.